-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
IBM or MAXTOR ATA133???
- Thread starter ltww
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2000
- Location
- Pensacola, Florida USA
not one of the choices, but Maximum PC just rated the WD 100 gig ATA100 as the best drive on the market right now. Less platters with more info stored on them means faster seek times.
dunno if that helps.
dunno if that helps.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Location
- Ottawa, Canada
Maxtor should be faster, its in a new generation.
ata 100 or 133 is the same thing. the drive can't offer bursts even close to 133 mb/ps
ata 133 interface will allow for bigger drives that ata 100.
But speed wise, i don't think one interface is faster than the other.
ibm gxp 120 and the Western Digital WD1200JB With 8 MB Cache are extreemly fast drives.
Below is a clip from tom's hardware.
Some might criticize that the Western Digital drive is not ATA/133. But the fact is, many people don't really know what to think about ATA/133. Is ATA/100 still fast enough? If it is, then when is the right time to upgrade? Are there any advantages at all? Right now, UltraATA/133 is nothing more than a marketing catchword.
According to Intel and the vast majority of the manufacturers that deal with storage devices and controllers, Ultra ATA/133 might never have been introduced. Rather, everybody is working on Serial-ATA to finally replace the parallel ATA protocol. Unfortunately (or fortunately), Maxtor, strengthened by the acquisition of Quantum, revived Ultra ATA by single-handedly introducing Ultra ATA/133 and convincing several companies to support it. Motherboards with VIA chipsets will soon support ATA/133 by default, and controller cards from HighPoint and Promise are already available. Nonetheless, Intel does not support UltraATA/133 at all, and neither IBM nor Western Digital offer ATA/133 drives - though it would only be a matter of days until the current models could be adapted.
There are several reasons why most companies are impatiently waiting for the successor to ATA. The limited cable length (max. 40 cm) and the rather small bandwidth increase are the two most important ones. When UltraDMA/33 was introduced, it doubled the bandwidth that PIO mode 4 was able to offer. UltraATA/66 doubled the bandwidth again, while UltraATA/100 provided only a 50% boost. The step from ATA/100 to ATA/133 is even smaller (only 33%), showing that the margin for higher bandwidths is pretty small. So, is it all much ado about nothing?
Indeed there's not much that speaks in favor of the new standard. Even the latest hard drives do not deliver more than 50 MB/s, and the limit at 127 GB due to limited addressing possibilities has nothing to to with the interface. Another issue is the limited bandwidth of the PCI bus: at 32-bit and 33 MHz, 133 MB/s are available. As the IDE interface is not the only PCI device, there is usually only 2/3 of this bandwidth left. 64-bit slots or 66 MHz operation are a requirement for any new standard!
ata 133 interface will allow for bigger drives that ata 100.
But speed wise, i don't think one interface is faster than the other.
ibm gxp 120 and the Western Digital WD1200JB With 8 MB Cache are extreemly fast drives.
Below is a clip from tom's hardware.
Some might criticize that the Western Digital drive is not ATA/133. But the fact is, many people don't really know what to think about ATA/133. Is ATA/100 still fast enough? If it is, then when is the right time to upgrade? Are there any advantages at all? Right now, UltraATA/133 is nothing more than a marketing catchword.
According to Intel and the vast majority of the manufacturers that deal with storage devices and controllers, Ultra ATA/133 might never have been introduced. Rather, everybody is working on Serial-ATA to finally replace the parallel ATA protocol. Unfortunately (or fortunately), Maxtor, strengthened by the acquisition of Quantum, revived Ultra ATA by single-handedly introducing Ultra ATA/133 and convincing several companies to support it. Motherboards with VIA chipsets will soon support ATA/133 by default, and controller cards from HighPoint and Promise are already available. Nonetheless, Intel does not support UltraATA/133 at all, and neither IBM nor Western Digital offer ATA/133 drives - though it would only be a matter of days until the current models could be adapted.
There are several reasons why most companies are impatiently waiting for the successor to ATA. The limited cable length (max. 40 cm) and the rather small bandwidth increase are the two most important ones. When UltraDMA/33 was introduced, it doubled the bandwidth that PIO mode 4 was able to offer. UltraATA/66 doubled the bandwidth again, while UltraATA/100 provided only a 50% boost. The step from ATA/100 to ATA/133 is even smaller (only 33%), showing that the margin for higher bandwidths is pretty small. So, is it all much ado about nothing?
Indeed there's not much that speaks in favor of the new standard. Even the latest hard drives do not deliver more than 50 MB/s, and the limit at 127 GB due to limited addressing possibilities has nothing to to with the interface. Another issue is the limited bandwidth of the PCI bus: at 32-bit and 33 MHz, 133 MB/s are available. As the IDE interface is not the only PCI device, there is usually only 2/3 of this bandwidth left. 64-bit slots or 66 MHz operation are a requirement for any new standard!
- Thread Starter
- #7
wow!
Thats really helped me make a choice!!!
I didn't know most of that since I've not been following hardware to closly. This is the first computer I've built in 2 years so I'm a little rusty. Just want to get it perfect first time round.
Thx!
Thats really helped me make a choice!!!
I didn't know most of that since I've not been following hardware to closly. This is the first computer I've built in 2 years so I'm a little rusty. Just want to get it perfect first time round.
Thx!
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2001
- Location
- Folding in Barbados
For now I'd stay away from IBM desktop drives............... there are currently issues and class-action suits with their less than reliable 75gxp series ( i think that's the one ). A friend of mine got a 60gxp series hoping he wouldn't be affected but it crashed in 2 months. I personally would give IBM a while to prove themselves again before I buy.
I must admit though that I'm not sure if they have resolved those issues so you will have to look that up.
I must admit though that I'm not sure if they have resolved those issues so you will have to look that up.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2001
- Location
- Mount Vernon, WA
those issues were a result of heat. those drives produced an insane ammount of heat and it would cause the platters to expand and the read heads couldnt find where to read the data and would reset, aka "the click of death"
i have a 75gxp and it works perfectly, of course i have mass cooling on it.
the 120gxp drives dont produce very much heat at all and they are far more resistant to heat (glass platters instead of metal). they should be very reailable drives, BUT they will still need cooling, espically on the controller chips on the underside of the drive.
EDIT: Heres the article.
i have a 75gxp and it works perfectly, of course i have mass cooling on it.
the 120gxp drives dont produce very much heat at all and they are far more resistant to heat (glass platters instead of metal). they should be very reailable drives, BUT they will still need cooling, espically on the controller chips on the underside of the drive.
EDIT: Heres the article.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2001
- Location
- Los Angeles
First of all ATA133 does have a slightly higher burst speed than ATA100, I just did the test for myself today: http://forum.oc-forums.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72256
Second IBM's plain old SUCK! Yeah they are fast WHEN THEY WORK! Had 2 60GXP's fail on me in 1 week of each other, bought them new 8/01. Third, Have you seen this regarding the new 120GXP's at www.storagereview.com ? Here is a quote:
Q: Would you recommend this drive in a server role?
A: No, the drive is intended to be on for no more than about 8 hours a day. If it were only used during that period and then shut down for the day, then it would be fine, but it definitely should NOT be used in a 24/7 role for those customers concerned with reliability.
I can not vouch for WD, I have read the reviews and they seem solid and fast. I like my fluid bearing ATA133 Maxtors...
Second IBM's plain old SUCK! Yeah they are fast WHEN THEY WORK! Had 2 60GXP's fail on me in 1 week of each other, bought them new 8/01. Third, Have you seen this regarding the new 120GXP's at www.storagereview.com ? Here is a quote:
Q: Would you recommend this drive in a server role?
A: No, the drive is intended to be on for no more than about 8 hours a day. If it were only used during that period and then shut down for the day, then it would be fine, but it definitely should NOT be used in a 24/7 role for those customers concerned with reliability.
I can not vouch for WD, I have read the reviews and they seem solid and fast. I like my fluid bearing ATA133 Maxtors...
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2001
- Location
- Folding in Barbados
I agree totally nikhsub !
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2001
- Location
- Mount Vernon, WA
Keep in mind that IBM means that the drive should only be run for 8 hours at a time with NO cooling.Cowboy X said:
i have a huge heatsink on the top of my hdd with fans, and i have fans on the bottom blowing on the controller chips, and i have been running this for 5 months as my primairy drive with windows and have had zero problems.
i even defrag it frequently and move a ton of stuff to/from the drive so its under constant stress. not a single problem yet
If anyone has one of these you NEED to cool it or it will fail sooner or later.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2001
- Location
- Folding in Barbados
I understand your point Bigred .................... but hd s aren't cpus or gpus and cooling should be an option. The majority of compuetrs out there will not belong to enthusiasts and will not have any form of cooling. Where n the box or on the manual does IBM let regular home users know ......... Oh by the way this product can't be used for more than 8hrs straight ....... or .......... product requires external cooling , not included.
Maybe IBM fixed such problems with their latest 120gxp drives but they treated their customers very badly . I was almost one of them. This leaves a bad taste in the mouth especially when one considers the good reviews those drives got when they were considered the best drives around ............. until they began to fail. It's quite hard for me to trust or flock to another IBM storage product for a while .
That's enough of a rant for me today .
P.S. : I think they will lose the class-action suit .
Maybe IBM fixed such problems with their latest 120gxp drives but they treated their customers very badly . I was almost one of them. This leaves a bad taste in the mouth especially when one considers the good reviews those drives got when they were considered the best drives around ............. until they began to fail. It's quite hard for me to trust or flock to another IBM storage product for a while .
That's enough of a rant for me today .
P.S. : I think they will lose the class-action suit .
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
GO for IBM all the way.. I dont like Maxtor.. never had and never will.... I use to like Quantum but since now Quantum and MAxtor are 1.. I'm kinda iffy....Seagate Barraduda IV kicks *** too
Ok, aside from from all links to these manufacturers and not playing favorites, Maxtor right now isn't playing a very good game, sure they have 133 out but the transfer speeds just aren't there. The 120gxp will indeed kill the maxtor in performance. Just make sure you pop on a hard drive cooler and you wont have to worry about any failures to the ibm drive, but if money is no object to you then you could also look in to the Western Digital 120gb drive with 8mb buffer. Anyways if you want to see some good reviews check out storagereview.com which im sure you already know about.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2002
- Location
- southwest louisiana
I vote for maxtor. Thus far they have the speed on the ata133.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2001
- Location
- Edmonton, Alberta
The choice is easy, Maxtor D740X!
Maxtor has even more affordable prices than IBM and WD and you know you got ATA-133 whether you want to argue or not. ATA-133 is here and it really makes a difference in a RAID0 setup.
Maxtor has even more affordable prices than IBM and WD and you know you got ATA-133 whether you want to argue or not. ATA-133 is here and it really makes a difference in a RAID0 setup.
Similar threads
